Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced a decision that Vermont's law requiring physicians to consent to the sale of their prescribing habits to drug companies for marketing purposes is unconstitutional. They said that the Prescription Confidentiality Law infringes on the pharmaceutical industry's First Amendment right to commercial free speech.

This decision ultimately protects “data mining,” the practice of purchasing physician prescribing data to inform more “effective” marketing practices. Drug representatives use this information to tailor their sales pitches to individual doctors and boost drugmakers profits. And the decision has far-reaching implications. It jeopardizes legislation currently in New Hampshire and Maine, that requires providers to consent to the use of prescribing information for marketing purposes.

“The law actually protects the privacy of patients and physicians,” says AMSA National President Danielle Salovich, M.D. “Prescriptions are written for patients and should remain a private matter. They should not become a marketing tool for profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies.”

IMS Health, a data-mining company, challenged the Vermont law as a violation of commercial free speech under the First Amendment and won in a lower court. As a result, the case is now before the Supreme Court. Several other states have either passed or are considering similar legislation, so the Court’s decision may have implications across the country.

While these marketing strategies may boost drug company profits, the unfortunate consequence of this practice for patients ...